Archive for May, 2012

The Pastor and Personal Criticism, By C. J. Mahaney, Part 2

Posted: May 31, 2012 in Pastoral Theology
Tags: , , , , , , ,
0

Here is another excerpt on Pastors and Personal Criticism.

Mahaney begins his post by quoting Tim Keller:

Tim Keller is familiar with the temptations that come with personal criticism. He writes, the biggest danger of receiving criticism is not to your reputation, but to your heart. You feel the injustice of it and feel sorry for yourself, and it tempts you to despise the critic.

Mahaney confesses, I am tempted to despise the critic. I sinfully judge the motive of the one criticizing me, wondering if they’re offended with me, rather than focusing on the content of their communication. Worse, I am tempted to dismiss the content if it is imprecisely communicated or if the illustrations are not completely accurate. I did this just yesterday when someone kindly corrected me. This is pride, and I’ve seen it in my own heart.

When criticism arrives, temptations to sin come fast and furious in the heart of the pastor. And if a pastor isn’t prepared for criticisms, if he doesn’t prize growth in godliness, he will despise criticism rather than embrace it. Sadly I have many times.

But by God’s grace, there is an alternative. We can view personal criticism as a God-appointed means to produce humility in our lives, even if the criticism isn’t accurate. As John Newton wrote,

The Lord abhors pride and self-importance. The seeds of these evils are in the hearts of his own children; but rather than suffer that which He hates to remain in those He loves, He will in mercy pound them as in a mortar, to beat it out of them, or to prevent its growth.

Criticism is just one of the many ways God will pound the pride out of a pastor. But only when we have this perspective, will we humbly embrace—rather than proudly react to—the criticism when (not if) it arrives.

Mahaney quotes Bill Farley, in his excellent article, “The Poison of Self-Pity,” writes that “the roots of self-pity are ‘pride-in-action.’ It is the propensity to feel sorry for yourself because you are not getting what you think you deserve.”

In the Letters of John Newton, Newton wrote to a pastor who was preparing to write his opponent a letter. Newton gave this advice:

As to your opponent, I wish that before you set pen to paper against him, and during the whole time you are preparing your answer, you may commend him by earnest prayer to the Lord’s teaching and blessing. This practice will have a direct tendency to conciliate your heart to love and pity him; and such a disposition will have a good influence upon every page you write.

In other words, as Jesus taught, “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them who hate you, and pray for them who despitefully use you, and persecute you” (Matthew 5:44).

David Powlison explains how the Lord used this criticism to expose the idols in his heart and how Psalm 31 served his soul in the process.

The Importance of Identifying the Plot and the Scenes, Part 6

Posted: May 31, 2012 in Preaching Narratives
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
0

The exegesis of scene six in 1 Samuel 1:21-23 enables us to make this Summary Statement: Will Hannah give Samuel to the Lord as vowed? The Summary Statement which is the meaning for the original audience will be converted into a Timeless Principle or meaning for our modern audience: Will we give our best to God back to God? when He answers prayers?

Scene six

If the story in 1 Samuel 1 were a simple plot, then the narrative would quickly come to its conclusion because the conflict has been solved. Barren Hannah has given birth to her son. But the story is not a simple plot; it is a complex plot with scene six introducing the turning point or new conflict which must be solved before the plot can end. There is a location change in v.21 which helps to identify the new scene. Elkanah’s intention in v.21 is to immediately take Samuel to the house of the LORD in Shiloh (location change) and present him for full-time service as Hannah vowed in v.11 However, Hannah had other plans as expressed in the first of two dialogues.  Hannah is not going to take Samuel to Shiloh until she has weaned him. The word “wean” is used three times in scene six and once in scene seven and is the focus of the conflict. According to 2nd Maccabees 7:27, breast feeding could take three years. “O my son, have pity upon me that bare thee nine months in my womb, and gave thee suck three years, and nourished thee, and brought thee up unto this age, and endured the troubles of education,”[9] pleads the mother in 2nd Maccabees for her son not to renounce his faith before Antiochus. Once Hannah’s son is weaned, she will take Samuel to the house of the LORD for full-time service where he will “there abide for ever.”

The new conflict arises because Elkanah thinks Hannah is selfishly postponing the service of her son because she does not intend to ever present him to the LORD. In the second dialogue of the scene six, Elkanah uses a word from the time of Judges. Elkanah says to Hannah, “Do what is good in your eyes .” That phrase is used in Judges 17:6 and 21:25 to describe the moral and religious selfishness that characterized Israel at her lowest point. Elkanah compares the selfishness of Hannah to the selfishness of morally and religiously apostate Israel.  Whereas Hannah stresses keeping Samuel until he is weaned so she can bring him to the LORD and  “there” he would remain for ever in service to the LORD; Elkanah sees Hannah allowing Samuel to tarry (here) at home. Both view the same event, weaning, differently. The conflict is whether Hannah is going to keep her part of the vow made back in v.11. Hannah is not postponing presenting Samuel for full-time service but rather, Hannah is preparing Samuel for full-time service. “Hannah has chosen to lay the foundations of Samuel’s life herself by protecting the most intimate and physical phase of the mother-child relationship and by keeping him with her. Before the child removes to the temple, he can enjoy the oral phases at home, close to his loving mother, who thus vouches for a substantial basis to the development of his personality,”[10] observed Fokkelman. J.Carl Laney agrees: “The word translated ‘weaned’ literally means ‘dealt fully with’ and may include the idea of spiritual training as well. It may well be that Samuel learned of the importance of prayer from this godly mother at a very young age and thus became a great prophet of prayer.”[11] The summary statement for scene six is a question: Is Hannah postponing or preparing her son for the full-time service ?

[9] Manuel Komroff, ed., The Apocrypha (New York: Tudor, 1937), 327.

[10]Fokkelman, Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel, 65.

[11]Laney, Carl L. First and Second Samuel, (Chicago: Moody, 1982), 19.


The Pastor and Personal Criticism by C. J. Mahaney (Part 1)

Posted: May 30, 2012 in Pastoral Theology
Tags: , , , , , , ,
0

Here are a few excerpts from a series by C. J. Mahaney just to whet your appetite to go read them.

  • A pastor can expect criticism because of his own sin, which will inevitably be present in his heart and service, no matter how mature or well meaning he is (James 3:2).
  • A pastor can expect criticism because there are limitations to his gifting, meaning there will always be weaknesses in his leadership.
  • A pastor can expect criticism because we often preach below-average sermons. (After one sermon, a guy asked me, “So where do you work during the week?” My sermon apparently gave him the impression that preaching wasn’t my vocation.)
  • A pastor can expect criticism because people can be proud and ungrateful.
  • A pastor can expect criticism because, well, it is a sinful and fallen world.

But we as pastors often forget one more important reason:

  • A pastor can expect criticism because it is part of God’s sanctification process—a tool that he uses to reveal idols and accelerate the pastor’s growth in humility.

God enlists many to serve us to this end.

Puritan Richard Baxter got this. In his book to pastors, The Reformed Pastor, he wrote,

Because there are many eyes upon you, therefore there will be many observers of your falls. If other men may sin without observation, so cannot you. And you should thankfully consider how great a mercy this is, that you have so many eyes to watch over you, and so many ready to tell you of your faults, and so have greater helps than others, at least for the restraining of your sin. Though they may do it with a malicious mind, yet you have the advantage by it.*

According to Baxter, the critique of many is actually a great advantage to pastors. This is a great mercy—at least I keep telling myself it is. And I have to keep reminding myself because criticism isn’t my personal preference.

I would prefer to mature through less painful means. I would prefer to mature through a flood of sanctified encouragement—that’s what I’m talking about!

But the reality is that I have grown far, far, far, far, far more from criticism and correction than from all the wonderful encouragement I have received over the years.

Sermon: You Can’t Take It With You But You Can Send It On Ahead (Ecclesiastes 5:10-15)

Posted: May 30, 2012 in Sermons
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
0

Randy Alcorn tells this story about Alfred Nobel. “It was 1888, Alfred Nobel was a Swedish chemist who made his fortune inventing and producing dynamite. His brother Ludvig had died in France.  But now Alfred’s grief was compounded by dismay. He’d just read an obituary in a French newspaper—not his brother’s obituary, but his! An editor had confused the brothers. The headlines read, “The Merchant of Death Is Dead.” Alfred Nobel’s obituary described a man who had gotten rich by helping people kill one another. Shaken by this appraisal of his life, Nobel resolved to use his wealth to change his legacy. When he died eight years later, he left more than $9 million to fund awards for people whose work benefited humanity. The awards became known as the Nobel Prizes. Alfred Nobel had a rare opportunity—to look at the assessment of his life at its end and still have the chance to change it. Before his life was over, Nobel made sure he had invested his wealth in something of lasting value (The Treasure Principle, page 79-80).

Randy Alcorn then made this challenge: “Put yourself in Alfred Nobel’s shoes. Find a piece of paper and a pen. Sit down; think about it; then write your own obituary. Make a list of what you’ll be remembered for, Go ahead. Done? Now read your obituary. How do you feel about it?

The reason Solomon wrote Ecclesiastes, when he was old, was like Alfred Nobel, to change how he would be remembered.

Before Solomon wrote Ecclesiastes, Solomon was known as a religious Hugh Hefner.

Solomon indulged in wine, women, and wealth. His autobiography of those backslidden years is Ecclesiastes 2:1-11. Someone has called this section, “The Confessions of a Workaholic.” Solomon experimented with pleasure (2:1-3), building projects (12:4-6), Solomon spent 7 years building the Temple and 13 years building his own house. Solomon also experimented with possessions (12:7-10). The result of his experiment is in 12:11, “all was vanity and frustration.” American preacher Henry Ward Beecher said, “Success is full of promise until men get it and then it is last years nest from which the birds have flown.”

His biography is recorded in 1 Kings 3-11. His annual income was 133,000,000 a year (1 Kings 10:14), just in gold, not including benefits and royal perks.

Solomon’s wealth turned his heart away from God. The last chapter in Solomon’s biography in 1 Kings is chapter 11:1-9, which documents Solomon departure from the Lord.

But the very last chapter of Solomon’s life, however, is Ecclesiastes. Many believe Solomon repented and wrote Ecclesiastes to young adults who are wealthy (11:9,10; 12: 1; 5:19) potential leaders.

To these young upcoming leaders, Solomon warns in 5:10, “Don’t love money!” Don’t make the same mistakes I made.

Next, Solomon gave some personally painful reasons why we should not love money.

1. We Should Not Love Money Because Money does not Satisfy (5:10).

Even though Solomon’s annual gold income was over 133,000,000 in 2:17, he confessed, “I hated life….”

The person who loves money cannot be satisfied no matter how much is in the bank account—because the human heart was made to be satisfied only by God (3:11). “Take heed and beware of covetousness,” warned Jesus, “for one’s life does not consist in the abundance of the things which he possesses” (Luke 12:15, NKJV) (Warren W. Wiersbe, Be Satisfied. Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books, 1996, 19).

2. We Should Not Love Money Because Money cannot buy Friends (5:11).

When Joe Louis was the heavyweight boxing champion of the world, he helped many who were less fortunate than he. There were literally hundreds of folks he ‘looked after’ who loved him—idolized him. But when Louis lost his heavyweight title, his wealth, and his health, he found himself a lonely man. ‘Where are my friends?’ he wondered (Ed Young. Been There. Done That. Now What? page 95).

3. We Should Not Love Money Because Money doesn’t bring Peace (5:12).

More than one preacher has mentioned John D. Rockefeller in his sermons as an example of a man whose life was almost ruined by wealth. At the age of fifty-three, Rockefeller was the world’s only billionaire, earning about a million dollars a week. But he was a sick man who lived on crackers and milk and could not sleep because of worry. When he started giving his money away, his health changed radically and he lived to celebrate his ninety-eighth birthday! (Warren W. Wiersbe, Be Satisfied. Wheaton, Ill.: Victor Books, 1996, 19).

4. We Should Not Love Money Because Money will Hurt you (5:13).

Listen to Paul warn about the love of money in 1 Timothy 6:7-10. Listen to Jesus’ warning in Matthew 16:26. Notice the similarity between Matthew 16:26 and Ecclesiastes 1:3.

5. We Should Not Love Money Because Money doesn’t Last (5:14).

Money is either lost in life or at death.

6. We Should Not Love Money Because You Cannot Take It With You (5:15).

The comedian Jack Benny was known as a stingy tightwad who hoarded his money. Folks used to say, ‘If Jack can’t take it with him, Jack won’t go.’ But Jack is gone. And his money is sill here (Young, page 99). Jesus agreed with Solomon when He preached on money in Matthew 6:19, “Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon the earth, where moth and rust does corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal.” Jesus is also saying, “You cannot take it with you.” But listen to the next statement by Jesus, “But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust does corrupt, and where thieves do not break through and steal.”

Jesus is saying, “You can’t take it with you but you can send it on ahead.”

Jesus preached more on the topic of money than on the topics of heaven and hell combined. Why did Jesus preach more on the subject of money and possessions than any other truth? Because Jesus knew you cannot separate money and our love for God. After Jesus instructs us to send our money ahead to heaven by investing in the Lord’s work, He tells us why: “For (or because) where your money is there will be your heart be also.” You cannot separate faith and finances.

My wife Becky and Debbie Johnson and Joy Ratlift are in charge of crafts on our Alaska mission’s trip. They want the children to make crafts that give a witness to these kids some of whom have never heard the gospel. They could be ministering to 50 kids a day. So they are going to need around 50 crafts per day or 250 crafts for the week. So instead of trying to carry 250 crafts on the plane they are going to order the crafts and sent them on ahead so they will be there when they arrive in Alaska on June 16.

The same is true with our money. We can’t take it with us but we can send it on ahead by investing in the Lord’s work here at Gospel Baptist Church.

Where can we start investing in the Lord’s work here at Gospel?

The place to start is the place where God started in the O.T. God started with the tithe in the O.T. such as Leviticus 27:30. Jesus validated the tithe in Mt. 23:23. After the Gospels the tithe is neither commanded nor rescinded. But does God expect us today to give less than believers gave in the OT or the Gospels?

The Corinthians had written and asked Paul about giving and he responded in 1 Corinthians 16:1-2.

1. Give on the Lord’s Day because giving is part of our worship to God.

Paul described the gift the Philippians sent to him as an act of worship to God: “I am full having received of Epaphroditus the things which were sent from you, an odor of sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, well pleasing to God” (Phil 4:18). We worship God in a public service by giving God our praise in singing, by giving Him our time and service. And by giving God a portion of what He has given us.

2. Every member should give regularly.

20% of most members in most churches give 80% of the money. 30 % of most members give 20% of the money. 50% do not give. That means one half of God’s people are not spiritually blessed by God. Paul makes this point to the Corinthians who had not given what they had promised: “He who sows sparingly shall reap also sparingly; and he who sows bountifully shall reap also bountifully” (2 Corinthians 9:6). Giving is just as much a means of God’s grace in our lives as prayer, Bible Reading, listening to the preached Word, using our spiritual gifts, and witnessing.

Jesus said as recorded in Acts 20:35, “It is more blessed to give than to receive.”

3. Every member give regularly where you attend and are fed and are ministered to and where you serve.

The Corinthians promised to give. But one year later they still had not given what they promised.  At Ephesus, in response Paul writes 2 Corinthians 8 and 9 on giving. He started this doctrinal section on giving by referring to the dirt-poor believers on welfare and food stamps at Macedonia as examples of giving liberally out of their poverty.

Every once and while some believer will say, “I can’t afford to tithe.” My question is, “If your salary were reduced 10% would you be able to survive?” Sometimes the same people who say they cannot afford to tithe can afford cable TV, Netflix, smart phones, and eating out.

Did Paul’s teaching on giving work?

When Paul left Ephesus, he travelled to Corinth. From Corinth he wrote Romans and stated his plans in 15:25-27. The Corinthians responded to Paul’s teaching on giving. They Changed. If we only had 1 Corinthians where Paul deals with the selfishness of the Corinthians we would remember Corinthians as carnal believers. But we have 2 Corinthians where Paul commended them for dealing with sin. We also have Romans where we learn that they responded to Paul’s teaching on giving. Now the Corinthians are remembered for being growing believers who respond when God’s Word is taught.

What will we be remembered for?

Randy Alcorn concludes his book The Treasure Principle with the story of Charles Dickens’ classic story A Christmas Story.  The Story opens with Ebenezer Scrooge wealthy and miserable. He is caustic, complaining, horrendously greedy. After his encounter with three spirits on Christmas Day, he is given a second chance at life. After his transformation, Scrooge walks through the streets of London, freely distributing his wealth to the needy. He is giddy with delight. He, who only yesterday had scoffed at the idea of charity, now takes his greatest pleasure in giving. On the story’s final page, Dickens says of Scrooge:

Some people laughed to see the alteration of him, but he let them laugh, and little heeded them. . . .His own heart laughed, and that was quite enough for him. And it was always said of him, that he knew how to keep Christmas well, if any man alive possessed the knowledge.

Through a supernatural intervention, Scrooge was allowed to see his past, present, and the still-changeable future through the eyes of eternity and Scrooge changed. Now we remember Scrooge not for being miserable, always angry, and self-centered but happy, giving, and thinking of others (page 93-94).

The Importance of Identifying The Plot and the Scenes in Narrative Preaching, Part Five

Posted: May 30, 2012 in Preaching Narratives
Tags: , , , , , , ,
0

The exegesis of scene four enables us to make this Summary Statement: God answers Hannah’s prayer. The Summary Statement which is the meaning for the original audience will be converted into a Timeless Principle or meaning for our modern audience: God answers our prayers.

Scene five

The middle of the plot comes to an end in scene five with the answer to Hannah’s prayer in v.19 and Hannah’s response to the answered prayer in v.20. There is a time change to indicate a scene change in 19a. Hannah’s initiative, demonstrated in v.9 when she “rose up,” has rubbed off on Elkanah; for now it is “they” who “rose up” to worship. After they worship and return home to Ramah,  Elkanah “knew” his wife Hannah. This statement is Scripture’s euphemistic way of referring to the one-flesh relationship. The verse ends with the comment that “the LORD  remembered her.” This is the same word Hannah uses in her vow in v.11 when she requests, “O LORD of hosts, if you will indeed look on the affliction of your handmaid, and remember me.” God answers Hannah’s prayer not miraculously as he did with Abraham and Sara who were past child bearing age, nor naturally as he did with the majority of couples in Scripture about whom it is said, “and so-and-so begat so-and-so,” but God answers Hannah’s prayer providentially by opening the womb he had closed previously. A similar statement is made about Rachel who was barren for a long time and desperately requested of her husband “Give me children, or else I die” (Gen.30:1). “And God remembered Rachel and God hearkened to her, and opened her womb and she conceived, and bare a son” (Gen. 30:22, 23). The narrator is emphasizing that Hannah’s great prayer-answering God has providentially responded so all Israel will know that God is sovereignly raising up the monarchy by first of all raising up the king maker, Samuel.

In v. 20, Hannah appropriately responds to her answered prayer by acknowledging her great prayer-answering God. The narrator skips the nine month pregnancy and states that Hannah conceived and “bore a son, and called his name saying, Because I have asked him of the LORD.” Joyce G. Baldwin accurately interprets the significance of the name, “Samuel” with this statement: “Hannah gave birth to Samuel, [meaning ‘the name is El’] a reference to the power of God to whom she had prayed . . . . Hannah was testifying to her prayer-answering God rather than giving the strict etymology of the name.”[8] God  remembers Hannah and answers her prayer, and Hannah remembers God in giving him the appropriate praise for answering her prayer. Summary statement for scene five: God answers Hannah’s prayer, and Hannah gives the LORD His proper recognition.

[8]D. J.Wiseman, ed., The Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries, vol. 7, 1 and 2 Samuel, by Joyce G. Baldwin (Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity, 1988), 53.

The Importance of Identifying the Plot and Scenes in Narrative Preaching, Part Four

Posted: May 26, 2012 in Preaching Narratives
Tags: , , , , , ,
0

The exegesis of scene four enables us to make this Summary Statement: The solution to Hannah’s problem of barrenness is continued prayer. The Summary Statement which is the meaning for the original audience will be converted into a Timeless Principle or meaning for our modern audience: Our solution for the barrenness of leadership is contiuned prayer.

Scene four

Scene four is the central scene of not only the middle of the plot but of the entire narrative and continues to provide the solution of prayer to Hannah’s conflict. Also, scene four gives a detailed description of how Hannah “prayed to the LORD” in verse 10.  This scene begins with a chiasmus in verses 12 and 13 which is followed by two rounds of dialogue in verses 14-18.

The chiasmus follows the AB AB AB pattern. The A series depicts Hannah praying, while the B series gives Eli’s external appraisal.

 A 12a Hannah continued praying before the LORD

B 12b Eli marked her mouth

A 13a Hannah prays in her heart

B 13b Eli sees only her lips move

A 13c Hannah’s voice is not heard

B 13c Eli concludes, she is drunk

For the third time Hannah is misjudged. First by her enemy, next by her husband, and lastly by her priest. From the A series, the reader learns how Hannah prays. First, she continues to pray in 12a. Next, she prays from her heart that is right with God in 13a. Finally, Hannah prays silently in 13c. Eli, who is judgmental and external in his ministry, “looked on the outward appearance” which is the same mistake that Samuel will make later in chapter 16 in choosing Saul’s successor. Apparently Hannah already knew that “the LORD looks on the heart” (1 Sam.16:7).

The antagonist of Hannah in scene four is Eli with whom she has her first recorded dialogue in verses 14 and 15. In verse 14, Eli asks a rhetorical question, like Elkanah had earlier with the intent to rebuke and then issues a command for Hannah to put away her drinking. In verses 15 and 16, Hannah retorts with a six line reply that follows the AB AB AB pattern. The A series is negative in rebutting Eli’s external and false appraisal. The B series is positive in asserting the truth concerning Hannah’s situation.

A 15b  No, my Lord (negative)

B 15c I am a woman of a sorrowful spirit (positive assertion of the truth)

A 15d I have drunk neither wine nor strong drink (negative)

B 15e I have poured out my soul before the LORD (positive assertion of the truth)

A 16a Do not count thine handmaid for a worthless woman (a negative prohibition)

B 16b Out of the abundance of my complaint and grief have I spoken (positive assertion of the truth).

The second recorded dialogue is in verses 17 and 18 and Eli is much more tame having been put in his place by Hannah. Eli bids Hannah farewell in 17b and then pronounces a priestly benediction on her in 17c. In the priestly benediction, Eli unknowingly makes two significant statements. First, he uses the unique name “the God of Israel” not “LORD” or “the LORD of hosts.” Eli has no idea that Samuel will anoint the first two kings of Israel because as Eli says, again unwittingly, in the next significant statement that  “the God of Israel” has granted Hannah her “petition” which was for a son. In Hannah’s response, she ironically expresses thanks in verse seventeen for finding grace in Eli’s “eyes” which have not been very discerning. Finally, Hannah can eat and “her countenance was no more sad” because she is confident that God is going to answer her prayer. The fourth scene has disclosed how Hannah prays in response to her conflict of barrenness and innocent suffering. First she continues to pray (v.12a). Next she prayed with a heart right with God (v.13a). She prayed silently (v.13c); she pours out her soul to the LORD, and finally she prays with confidence that God is going to answer her prayer which he does in the last scene of the middle plot which will be examined now. Summary statement of scene four: The solution to Hannah’s problem of barrenness is Hannah’s continual prayer.

The Importance of Identifying the Plot and Scenes in Narrative Preaching, Part Three

Posted: May 24, 2012 in Preaching Narratives
Tags: , , , , , ,
0

The exegesis of scene three enables us to make this Summary Statement: The solution to Hannah’s problem of barrenness is selfless prayer. The Summary Statement which is the meaning for the original audience will be converted into a Timeless Principle or meaning for our modern audience: Our solution for the barrenness of leadership is selfless prayer.

Scene Three

The third scene begins the middle part of the plot. In scene three the iterative is over, and the punctual events begin that lead to the solution of the conflict introduced in the beginning of the plot.

The first six lines of scene three reveal Hannah rising and taking the initiative to do something about her problem. In v.9a, Hannah rises and takes the initiative while, by way of contrast,  in v.9b Eli the priest sits passively on his seat. Eli was passive physically and spiritually unto the day of his death in 4:13 where he is still sitting on a seat.

A chiasmus in the next four lines shows that Hannah took the initiative to pray.

10a Hannah is bitter in her soul

10b and prayed unto the LORD

10c and wept sore      

11a and she vowed a vow

Even though Hannah is bitter in her soul and is weeping, she prays and vows a vow to the LORD. Hannah is taking the initiative even though her circumstances are no better. The “bitterness” of Hannah reminds the reader of the bitterness of righteous Job, who also suffered undeservedly (Job 3:20; 7:11; 10:1; 21:25).

The next six lines give the content of her positive “vow”. The protasis or the conditional subordinate clause begins with “if” and is translated “if” or “since” God will “give unto thine handmaid a man child.” The apodosis or the conclusion of the conditional clause begins with “Then.” Hannah’s promise is two-fold. First, Hannah promises that she will give her son to the LORD in life long service. As a Levite, Samuel would be serving in the temple periodically from the age of 25 to 50 years of age according to Num. 8:24-25. Hannah promises that the son which the LORD gives her will serve the LORD all his life and all the time. The second part of Hannah’s double vow is the Nazarite vow found in Num. 6. This abstinence vow promised that the person would be “separate”  from worldly influence and would refrain from all adult beverages and contact with the dead. Not only would that consecrated person be separate from worldly influence, but he would be separated to the LORD. Therefore, Hannah mentioned only that “there shall no razor come upon his head.” As Samson demonstrated, the uncut hair was a symbol of life and strength from the LORD.

Hannah’s surrender of the son she knows the LORD is going to give her is unparalleled. Abraham, who also waited so long for his promised son, was commanded by God to surrender him and was willing to do so, but God intervened and spared Isaac. But Hannah did not spare her son. She gave him to the LORD all the days of his life. God takes the initiative with Samson’s mother in Judg. 13 and makes her the beneficiary of Samson who also was to be separated all his life (1 Sam.1:11g is identical to Judg.13:5). But Hannah is the one who takes the initiative and makes God the beneficiary in 1 Samuel 1. There is one surrender, however, that is greater than Hannah’s. God spared not His son who, unlike Abraham’s son, Isaac, was sinless (Rom.8:32). Unlike Samson’s mother, God took the initiative to give His son, not just before his birth as Hannah did but before the foundation of the world. The summary statement of scene three: The solution to Hannah’s problem of barrenness is Hannah’s selfless prayer.

 

The Importance of Identifying the Plot and Scenes in Narrative Preaching, Part Two

Posted: May 23, 2012 in Preaching Narratives
Tags: , , , , , , ,
0

Exegesis of scene two in 1 Samuel 1 equips us to make this the summary statement for scene two: The solution to Hannah’s barrenness is neither polygamy nor retaliation. This summary statement or meaning for the original audience will be converted to a timeless principle for our modern audience: The solution for the barrenness of leadership is not compromise nor retaliation.

Scene two

Scene two begins the repetitive part of narrative introductions in grand style in verse three. Fokkelman highlights this literary characteristic of narratives: “The heavily-laden line 3a introduces, also being the first to do so, a time adjunct, the ‘annual,’ which quickly secures the iterativeness of the exposition and whose form in itself, demands attention.”[4] Being the longest sentence in chapter one, verse 3a provides the repetitive background for the story. “And this man went up out of his city yearly to worship and to sacrifice unto the LORD of hosts in Shiloh.” This habitual action of Elkanah shows him to be a devout worshiper of the Lord.

There are two conflicts or attacks directed at Hannah in scene two, and she properly and habitually responds to both attacks revealing her righteous character. The first conflict is displayed in two chiasms.

The first conflict is now explicitly revealed by two chiasms which will be outlined and then explained. The first chiasmus reveals the source of the conflict: The barrenness of Hannah.

The outline of the chiasmus:

4b Elkanah gave to Peninnah his wife and all her sons and daughter, portions

5a And to Hannah he gave one portion

5b Because he loved her  

5c And the LORD had shut her womb

The explanation of the chiasmus:

4b Elkanah gave to his wife and all her sons and daughter, portions.

This first line amplified 2d “Peninnah had children”

5a And to Hannah he gave one portion.

To his number one wife, Elkanah gave a number one portion

5b Because he loved her

Elkanah loved Hannah unconditionally as the next line indicates

5c And the LORD had shut her womb

This is “an independent clause in terms of Hebrew syntax,”[5] notes Fokkelman, and is a statement that Hannah’s barrenness was a result of divine providence.

As the first line amplified 2d in regard to Peninnah’s children, the final line of the first chiasmus enlarges on 2e and draws the contrast that led to the conflict. “Hannah had no children.”

The next chiasmus reveals the iterativeness of the conflict: Peninnah habitually provoked Hannah.

The outline of the chiasmus:

6a Her adversary provoked her sore, for to make her fret

6b Because the LORD had shut up her womb

            7a As he did so year by year

7b When she went up to the house of the LORD, so she provoked her

6a Her adversary provoked her sore, for to make her fret.

The explanation of the chiasmus:

6a Her adversary provoked her sore, for to make her fret

Peninnah attacks Hannah because she is jealous. Narratives show the sinfulness of polygamy and other sins, not by explicitly condemning them, but by showing the adverse consequences of such sins.

6b Because the LORD had shut up her womb.

Unlike the first reference to the LORD shutting her womb which was an independent clause and started with the waw consecutive, this clause starts with the preposition “because”. So what was divine providence in verse five has become divine punishment in verse six according to Peninnah.

7a As he did so year by year

Not only did Elkanah habitually go to the house of LORD to worship, but Pininnah habitually provoke Hannah at the house of the LORD.

7b When she went up to the house of the LORD, so she provoked her

Not only did Elkanah habitually worship the LORD, and Peninnah iteratively provoked Hannah, but Hannah repeatedly and righteously responded. “Therefore she wept, and did not eat.” Hannah did not retaliate against the attacks of Peninnah.

The second scene comes to a close with the second attack on Hannah. The attack is heard in the first dialogue of the story and comes from Hannah’s husband. Elkanah’s dialogue has four rhetorical questions. The first three questions all begin with the interrogative “why”. Elkanah knew why Hannah was weeping and not eating. The third question asked of Hannah was, “Why is your heart so grieved?” Here is how McCarter translates the question: “Why are you so resentful” and then adds, see “Deut. 15:10, where a begrudging attitude is implied.”[6] The last question does not begin with “why” and is what Fokkelman calls “the punchline.”[7] This last question reveals that Elkanah knew what was troubling Hannah. She has no sons. It also discloses that Elkanah is not comforting but rebuking his barren wife. The focus of the last question is not Hannah but Elkanah: “Am not I.” In this question, Elkanah is feeling sorry, not for his grieving and barren wife, but for himself, because he has a grieving wife who can not give him a future posterity that matches his impressive genealogy which is so proudly listed in verse one. Like Peninnah and Job’s miserable comforters, Elkanah only adds misery to Hannah’s grief.

Again, in this iterative part of the introduction, Hannah does not retaliate but righteously responds. The iterative part of the introduction has revealed the habitual actions of the main characters and, thus, has disclosed their character. Elkanah and Peninnah habitually attack Hannah, and Hannah habitually responds righteously. The summary statement for scene two: The solution to Hannah’s barrenness is neither polygamy nor retaliation.

[4]Fokkelman, Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel, 18.

[5]Ibid., 23.

[6]McCarter, P. Kyle. The Anchor Bible. 1 Samuel: A New Translation with Introduction, Notes and Commentary (Garden City: Doubleday, 1980), 53

The Importance of Identifying the Plot and Scenes in Narrative Preaching, Part One

Posted: May 22, 2012 in Preaching Narratives
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
0

An Exegetical Study of 1 Samuel 1:1-28

Plot and scenes examined

Plot

Each of the three major divisions of the plot, beginning, middle, and end, has its unique characteristics. Introduction of the characters and the conflict characterizes the beginning. This information is static and timeless and is presented with state of being verbs. Robert Alter calls this information pre-temporal.[1] The introduction is followed by the exposition where the action is repetitive and is presented with action verbs. Punctual action and resolution of the conflict characterize the middle. Conclusion of the story marks the end unless there is a turning point and a new conflict is introduced. If a new conflict is introduced, then that additional problem is solved in the conclusion.

The beginning of the plot in 1 Samuel one is in verses 1-8 and is made up of two scenes.  In scene one is the pre-temporal information that introduces Elkanah, Hannah, and Peninnah in verses 1, 2. The conflict is implied at the end of verse 2 when it says that “Hannah had no children.” Scene two contains the exposition and its iterative action in verses 3-8 and the conflict is explicitly described. The conflict is also stated in the first dialogue by Elkanah when he says to Hannah “Am not I better to thee than ten sons?” The conflict centers around Hannah’s barrenness.

The middle of the plot in verses 9-20 is divided into three scenes. The solution to the conflict as seen in scenes three and four is prayer, which God answers in scene five.

In scenes six and seven, the end of story comes. But this is a complex plot with a turning point, and a new conflict is introduced in scene six which is resolved in scene seven.

Scene one

Exegesis of scene one in 1 Samuel 1 equips us to make this the summary statement for scene one: Hannah is barren. This summary statement or meaning for the original audience will be converted to a timeless principle for our modern audience: There is a barrenness of leadership.

The preliminary information is presented at the beginning in scene one rather than throughout the body of the narrative. Scene one is made up of seven lines. The first two lines are about the man, the next three lines concern his two wives, and the last two lines mention the children.

The first two lines comprise a common pattern concerning the preliminary information provided at the beginning of the narrative. This common pattern can be seen in 1 Sam.1:1 and 9:1. Both of these common patterns introduce the fathers of the first two main characters of Samuel: Samuel and Saul. As the following outline of the common patterns reveals, a variation exists when there is a significant reason for the alteration. The pattern in 1:1 and 9:1 are identical. The pattern is broken in 25:2, 3, introducing Nabal.

The common pattern of the introductory narrative formula followed by the dwelling place, name, family, and then, last, the possessions is true to form in regard to Samuel’s and Saul’s fathers. But the pattern is significantly broken with Nabal. His possessions are listed before his name and family; this alteration indicates the materialism of Nabal that was displayed with David in chapter 25 and would have cost Nabal his life at the hands of David had not Nabal’s wise wife intervened.

The next three lines are devoted to Elkanah’s co-wives. Line 2a simply states that Elkanah had two wives. Line 2b, however, states that Elkanah’s number one wife was Hannah. The word “one” ( אַחַת֙) which comes from is a cardinal number and means one in quantity not order as in Dt.6:4.

In line 2c, the narrator informs his readers that Peninnah, on the other hand, was “the other” or second as the meaning of the ordinal number (הַשֵּׁנִ֖ית).

The last two lines of scene one concern the children and also indicate why Elkanah marries Peninnah when Hannah is his number one wife. “Peninnah had children, but Hannah had no children.” Elkanah, who has an “impressive genealogy . . . a proud past”[2] as seen in his four-fold genealogy in verse one, is married to a barren wife with whom he has no future posterity. So, like Abraham in Gen.16, Elkanah uses human reason to solve his barren wife’s problem. He commits polygamy and creates the conflict for which the middle of the plot will unfold and provide  the solution. Scene one is true to its form of introducing the main characters in timeless and static form. Although the conflict is implied in scene one, the conflict is clearly seen in scene two. A summary statement of each scene is necessary from which a timeless principle will later be formed for homiletical purposes. The summary statement for scene one is thus: Hannah’s problem is barrenness. In the light of all the predictions of a coming king from Gen. 17 and on, barrenness in the beginning of the book in which the king comes is significant.

In Part Two, we will examine scene two in 1 Samuel 1.

[1]Ibid., 80.

[2]Walter Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel: Interpretation, A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching (Louisville: John Knox, 1973), 12.


Sermon: Focusing on the Blessings In Ministry Not the Problems (2 Corinthians 2:14-7:4)

Posted: May 21, 2012 in Sermons
Tags: , ,
0

Tony Campolo tells the following camp incident in his book You Can Make a Difference:

I was in a junior high camp once. Everybody should go to a junior high camp once. The Bible is right. I should say my Roman Catholic friends are right. They should never have gotten rid of that doctrine of purgatory. There is a purgatory. It is junior high camp. I went there and these boys were rotten, just rotten. There was one little boy who suffered from cerebral palsy, and these cruel junior high boys just mocked him. As he walked across the grounds in his disjointed manner with his grotesque movements, they followed this spastic kid and they imitated him and mocked him. They thought that was fun. I saw him one day when he was haltingly trying to ask directions to the craft shop. “Which…way…is…the…craft…shop?” he asked. And the other boy, imitating him, said, “Thaat waay,” and he laughed at the boy. He thought that was fun.

But the epitome of that agony reached its crescendo on a Wednesday when it was his turn to give devotions at the morning hour of worship. His cabin elected “Spastic Billy” to give the devotions so they could mock him. And all the other boys laughed as little Billy stumbled his way to the platform. And they laughed at this spastic kid as he stood behind the pulpit. And the giggles were there and I watched little Billy take ten minutes to say, “Jesus …loves…me, …and…I…love…Jesus.”

When he finished, there was dead silence. A revival broke out and fifty young men in that camp are in the mission fields or in the ministry today because little Billy was able to overcome his resentment and serve God and give testimony to the opportunities that he had, opportunities that came out of a situation that he had every right to be resentful about.

This is what Paul does in 2 Corinthians. Paul’s circumstances were so bad that he “despaired even of life” (1:8).

1. The Corinthians had accused Paul of being of untrustworthy, untruthful, undependable just because Paul changed his plans about coming and visiting them (1:12).

2. There had been a miscommunication between Paul and his co-worker Titus (2:12-13).

3. There was a group at Corinth who viciously attacked Paul because they did not like the way he preached (10:10). These have been called the Nitpickers Brigade.

Paul stops recounting his bad circumstances and in 2:14 all the way to 7:4 focuses on the blessings of serving God. The section is called The Great Digression. He ends  informing us about his suffering with a reference to “Macedonia” in 2:13 and after he gives us five blessings in ministry on which to focus, Paul gives us the rest of the story starting in 7:5 with another reference to “Macedonia.”

1. Focus on the Victory That God Gives (2:14). 

Paul uses the example of the Roman Triumph, which was the Roman version of the American “ticker-tape” parade. Paul thanked God for leading us to victory even in miscommunications. Paul went to Troas and Titus did not show up. As Paul waited to meet with Titus, he planted a church. God gave the victory even in a miscommunication.

2. Focus on the Lives That God Changes (3:1-2)

Paul’s enemies criticized him because he did not have the proper credential. Paul’s credentials, however, were the changed lives his ministry of the Gospel had produced. Focus on the transformed lives your ministry can effect whether in the nursery, Sunday school, Awanas, Youth, or your pulpit ministry.

3. Focus on Power That God Gives (4:7)

From where comes this power? Paul asked earlier, “Who is sufficient for such things?” It does not come from us. Our bodies are like fragile clay pots (4:7). Not beautiful, china or crystal. Paul was not impressive physically (10:10).

Church history says Paul was under 5’ tall, bald, hook nosed, with diseased running eyes. The Corinthians had criticized Paul’s clay pot. The power comes from the treasure within. This is Paul’s theology of the physical body. In 4:16, the outward body is perishing.

If you live long enough, your body will wear down. Sorry! Tomorrow I go for a shot in my spine to relive lower back pain. It is not just those who grow older. We have a single mother friend who has a five year old daughter with physical and mental limitations. The daughter just spoke her first word, “Mama.” The mother recently told her daughter, “I love you.” The daughter responded back, “Love You.” Her daughter has a very fragile clay pot. But God is giving the mother the inward strength to cope.

Paul says we are to focus on the inward man. “Yet the inward man is being renewed day by day.” While you will grow weaker physically you can also grow stronger spiritually.

4. Focus on the Eternal not the Temporal (5:1-9)

Paul started this focus in 4:16-18. What is unseen but important?

We have not seen Christ, but He is the most important Person.

We have not seen Heaven, but Heaven is the most important Place.

We have not seen our Rewards, but they are our most important Possessions.

Focus on the Eternal because life is so brief (5:1 “for”). This physical body that we inherited from our parents is like a threadbear tent ready to be folded at any moment. When that happens at death, God will give us a body not made by humans, that is eternal and in the heavens. Because life is temporal focus on the eternal Person, Place, and Possessions.

5. Focus on Your Character Not Your Circumstances (6:3 “Giving no offense in any thing that the ministry be not blamed”)

A. Paul lists 9 external trials following “patience” or endurance in difficult circumstances (6:4-5)

1. Three general trials: afflictions, necessities, distresses

2. Three specific trials: stripes, imprisonments, and tumults

3. Three self-inflicted hardships: labors, watchings, fastings

B. Paul now lists 9 inner qualities (6:6-7). Our focus must be our character not our circumstances. Hans Finzel gives five levels of leadership with five ascending levels of influence. The lowest level is position where people follow the leader only because they will get fired if they don’t. The next level is relationships. At this level people follow because they like the leader. The third reason people follow leaders is because of the results the leader brings to the ministry. Level four is reproduction. This leader reproduces himself/herself in follows. The first four levels either have to do with competence or relationships. The fifth level and the greatest reason people want to follow leaders is character. This is most important reason. People follow the leader they respect.

6. Focus on Encouraging Others not being Encouraged (7:5).

When Paul finally met Titus in Philippi, Titus encouraged Paul with the news that the severe letter Paul had written and Titus had delivered had been responded to with repentance. The Corinthians had encouraged Titus and now Titus had encouraged Paul. This is what Paul focused on rather than the problems of ministry. In trials, focus on your ministry to others not on your personal misery.

Instead of focusing on the negatives we can meditate on the positives. Instead of complaining about what we do not have, we can give thanks for what God has so bountifully supplied. Instead of majoring on our problems, we should list our blessings and “name them one by one.” Or as my pastor used to say, “Count your many blessings name them ton by ton and it will surprise one what the Lord has done.”

Aimee Copeland, a 24-year-old Georgia graduate student contracted a flesh eating infection May 1 as she and friends zip-lined along the Little Tallapoosa River near Carrollton. When the homemade zip line broke, she fell to the water and rocks below, cutting a gash in her calf on a stone.

Doctors believe the bacteria, Aeromonas hydrophlia, entered her body from the warm water into the deep gash. The gash required two dozen staples to close. The flesh-eating bacteria destroys muscle, fat, and skin tissue by emitting toxins that cut off blood flow to parts of the body.

The doctors had to amputate her left leg up to her thigh to prevent the spread of the disease.

The 24-year-old woman battling deadly bacteria learned early Thursday that she faces more amputations

But even as she’s remained in critical condition at an Augusta hospital, Copeland has shown remarkable resilience, detailed by her father, Andy, on a Facebook page dedicated to his daughter.

In a Friday morning Facebook post, Andy Copeland said he and his wife explained to Aimee that she would need the amputations.

“Aimee, I do not want anything to happen to you,” Copeland said he told this daughter. “Your mind is beautiful, your heart is good and your spirit is strong. These hands can prevent your recovery from moving forward. The doctors want to amputate them and your foot today to assure your best possible chance of survival.”

From her hospital bed, Aimee told her parents she was a little confused, but would figure it out. Her parents then told her she would be fitted with artificial limbs eventually, her father wrote in the Facebook post.

“She smiled and raised her hands up, carefully examining them,” Andy Copeland wrote. “She then looked at us. We all understood her next three words.”

“Let’s do this,” Aimee Copeland said.

Aimee’s dad, mother, and sister are taking this ordeal one day at a time. They are focusing on the positives, laughing, and sharing family memories. Mr. Copeland said he was thankful the Aimee was alive, that the disease had not affected her mind, and that her fingers would not have to be amputated.

Older Entries